5 is a legitimate criticism, it is just unfortunate that creationist have to point it out.

We have observed "micro" evolution in a experimental lab setting. But we have not observed "macro" evolution in a experimental lab setting. To make the jump from Micro to Macro is poor science, but it always seems to get a pass because this is such a touchy subject. Any other field in science would throw a fucking fit if someone made such a conclusions. The claims of macro evolution will require a lot more than just studies of bacteria genetics.

Would you call a drug effective by only testing it on a few human cells in a petri dish? How can you do the same for evolution?

Call me back when there is an experimental design of comparable scale to macro-evolution before you get on your high horse.

Edit: For example, Newtonian physics works great on the small scale... why would we even need to test it at near light speeds??